<div id="readability-page-1" class="page"><p>Horror stories about the increasingly unpopular taxi service Uber have
                                been commonplace in recent months, but there is still much to be learned
                                from its handling of the recent hostage drama in downtown Sydney, Australia.
                                We’re told that we reveal our true character in moments of crisis, and
                                apparently that’s as true for companies as it is for individuals.</p><p>A number of experts have challenged the idea that the horrific explosion
                            of violence in a Sydney café was “terrorism,” since the attacker was mentally
                            unbalanced and acted alone. But, terror or not, the ordeal was certainly
                            terrifying. Amid the chaos and uncertainty, the city believed itself to
                            be under a coordinated and deadly attack.</p><p>Uber had an interesting, if predictable, response to the panic and mayhem:
                            It raised prices. A lot.</p><p>In case you missed the story, the facts are these: Someone named Man Haron
                            Monis, who was considered mentally unstable and had been investigated for
                            murdering his ex-wife, seized hostages in a café that was located in Sydney’s
                            Central Business District or “CBD.” In the process he put up an Islamic
                            flag – “igniting,” as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/15/us-australia-security-idUSKBN0JS0WX20141215">Reuters</a> reported,
                            “fears of a jihadist attack in the heart of the country’s biggest city.”</p><p>In the midst of the fear, Uber stepped in and tweeted this announcement: 
                            <span>“We are all concerned with events in CBD. Fares have increased to encourage
                                more drivers to come online &amp; pick up passengers in the area.”</span>
                        </p><p>As <a href="http://mashable.com/2014/12/14/uber-sydney-surge-pricing/">Mashable </a>reports,
                            the company announced that it would charge a minimum of $100 Australian
                            to take passengers from the area immediately surrounding the ongoing crisis,
                            and prices increased by as much as four times the standard amount. A firestorm
                            of criticism quickly erupted – “<a href="https://twitter.com/Uber_Sydney">@Uber_Sydney</a> stop
                            being assholes,” one Twitter response began – and Uber soon found itself
                            offering free rides out of the troubled area instead.</p><p>That opener suggests that Uber, as part of a community under siege, is
                            preparing to respond in a civic manner.<em></em>
                        </p><p><em>“… Fares have increased to encourage more drivers to come online &amp; pick up passengers in the area.”</em>
                        </p><div data-toggle-group="story-13850779">
                            <p>But, despite the expression of shared concern, there is no sense of <em>civitas</em> to
                                be found in the statement that follows. There is only a transaction, executed
                                at what the corporation believes to be market value. Lesson #1 about Uber
                                is, therefore, that in its view there is no heroism, only self-interest.
                                This is Ayn Rand’s brutal, irrational and primitive philosophy in its purest
                                form: altruism is evil, and self-interest is the only true heroism.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>There was once a time when we might have read of “hero cabdrivers” or
                                “hero bus drivers” placing themselves in harm’s way to rescue their fellow
                                citizens. For its part, Uber might have suggested that it would use its
                                network of drivers and its scheduling software to recruit volunteer drivers
                                for a rescue mission.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Instead, we are told that Uber’s pricing surge <em>was</em> its expression
                                of concern. Uber’s way to address a human crisis is apparently by letting
                                the market govern human behavior, as if there were (in libertarian economist
                                Tyler Cowen’s phrase) “markets in everything” – including the lives of
                                a city’s beleaguered citizens (and its Uber drivers). <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Where would this kind of market-driven practice leave poor or middle-income
                                citizens in a time of crisis? If they can’t afford the “surged” price,
                                apparently it would leave them squarely in the line of fire. And come to
                                think of it, why would Uber drivers value their lives so cheaply, unless
                                they’re underpaid? <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>One of the lessons of Sydney is this: Uber’s philosophy, whether consciously
                                expressed or not, is that life belongs to the highest bidder – and therefore,
                                by implication, the highest bidder’s life has the greatest value. Society,
                                on the other hand, may choose to believe that every life has equal value
                                – or that lifesaving services should be available at affordable prices. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>If nothing else, the Sydney experience should prove once and for all that
                                there is no such thing as “the sharing economy.” Uber is a taxi company,
                                albeit an under-regulated one, and nothing more. It’s certainly not a “ride
                                sharing” service, where someone who happens to be going in the same direction
                                is willing to take along an extra passenger and split gas costs. A ride-sharing
                                service wouldn’t find itself “increasing fares to encourage more drivers”
                                to come into Sydney’s terrorized Central Business District. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>A “sharing economy,” by definition, is lateral in structure. It is a peer-to-peer
                                economy. But Uber, as its name suggests, is hierarchical in structure.
                                It monitors and controls its drivers, demanding that they purchase services
                                from it while guiding their movements and determining their level of earnings.
                                And its pricing mechanisms impose unpredictable costs on its customers,
                                extracting greater amounts whenever the data suggests customers can be
                                compelled to pay them.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>This is a top-down economy, not a “shared” one.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>A number of Uber’s fans and supporters defended the company on the grounds
                                that its “surge prices,” including those seen during the Sydney crisis,
                                are determined by an algorithm. But an algorithm can be an ideological
                                statement, and is always a cultural artifact. As human creations, algorithms
                                reflect their creators. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Uber’s tweet during the Sydney crisis made it sound as if human intervention,
                                rather than algorithmic processes, caused prices to soar that day. But
                                it doesn’t really matter if that surge was manually or algorithmically
                                driven. Either way the prices were Uber’s doing – and its moral choice.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Uber has been strenuously defending its surge pricing in the wake of accusations
                                (apparently <a href="http://gothamist.com/2012/11/04/uber.php">justified</a>)
                                that the company enjoyed windfall profits during Hurricane Sandy. It has
                                now promised the state of New York that it will cap its surge prices (at
                                three times the highest rate on two non-emergency days). But if Uber has
                                its way, it will soon enjoy a monopolistic stranglehold on car service
                                rates in most major markets. And it has demonstrated its willingness to
                                ignore rules and regulations. That means<em> </em>predictable and affordable
                                taxi fares could become a thing of the past. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>In practice, surge pricing could become a new, privatized form of taxation
                                on middle-class taxi customers.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Even without surge pricing, Uber and its supporters are hiding its full
                                costs. When middle-class workers are underpaid or deprived of benefits
                                and full working rights, as Uber’s <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10">reportedly are</a>,
                                the entire middle-class economy suffers. Overall wages and benefits are
                                suppressed for the majority, while the wealthy few are made even richer.
                                The invisible costs of ventures like Uber are extracted over time, far
                                surpassing whatever short-term savings they may occasionally offer.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Like Walmart, Uber underpays its employees – many of its drivers <em>are</em> employees,
                                in everything but name – and then drains the social safety net to make
                                up the difference. While Uber preaches libertarianism, it practices a form
                                of corporate welfare. It’s reportedly <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/17/why-uber-loves-obamacare/">celebrating Obamacare</a>,
                                for example, since the Affordable Care Act allows it to avoid providing
                                health insurance to its workforce. But the ACA’s subsidies, together with
                                Uber’s often woefully insufficient wages, mean that the rest of us are
                                paying its tab instead. And the lack of income security among Uber’s drivers
                                creates another social cost for Americans – in lost tax revenue, and possibly
                                in increased use of social services. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>The company’s war on regulation will also carry a social price. Uber and
                                its supporters don’t seem to understand that<em> </em>regulations exist
                                for a reason. It’s true that nobody likes excessive bureaucracy, but not
                                all regulations are excessive or onerous. And when they are, it’s a flaw
                                in execution rather than principle. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Regulations were created because they serve a social purpose, ensuring
                                the free and fair exchange of services and resources among all segments
                                of society. Some services, such as transportation, are of such importance
                                that the public has a vested interest in ensuring they will be readily
                                available at reasonably affordable prices. That’s not unreasonable for
                                taxi services, especially given the fact that they profit from publicly
                                maintained roads and bridges.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Uber has presented itself as a modernized, efficient alternative to government
                                oversight. But it’s an evasion of regulation, not its replacement. As
                                <a href="http://fusion.net/story/33680/the-inside-story-of-how-the-uber-portland-negotiations-broke-down/">Alexis Madrigal</a>reports, Uber has deliberately ignored city regulators
                                    and used customer demand to force its model of inadequate self-governance
                                    (my conclusion, not his) onto one city after another.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Uber presented itself as a refreshing alternative to the over-bureaucratized
                                world of urban transportation. But that’s a false choice. We can streamline
                                sclerotic city regulators, upgrade taxi fleets and even provide users with
                                fancy apps that make it easier to call a cab. The company’s binary presentation
                                – us, or City Hall – frames the debate in artificial terms.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Uber claims that its driver rating system is a more efficient way to monitor
                                drivers, but that’s an entirely unproven assumption. While taxi drivers
                                have been known to misbehave, the worldwide litany of complaints against
                                Uber drivers – for everything from dirty cars and <a href="http://consumerist.com/2014/07/30/uber-passenger-complains-of-spider-bite-in-filthy-car/">spider bites</a> to
                                <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver-hammer-attack-liability/">assault with a hammer</a>, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-nikki-williams-2014-12">fondling</a> and
                                    <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/an-uber-driver-allegedly-raped-a-female-passenger-in-boston-2014-12">rape</a>– suggest that Uber’s system may not work as well as old-fashioned
                                        regulation. It’s certainly not noticeably superior.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>In fact, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/uber-california-lawsuit_n_6298206.html">prosecutors in San Francisco and Los Angeles</a> say
                                Uber has been lying to its customers about the level and quality of its
                                background checks. The company now promises it will do a better job at
                                screening drivers. But it <a href="http://consumerist.com/2014/12/18/uber-reportedly-revamping-security-wont-say-exactly-what-its-doing/">won’t tell us</a> what
                                measures its taking to improve its safety record, and it’s <a href="http://consumerist.com/2014/12/18/uber-reportedly-revamping-security-wont-say-exactly-what-its-doing/">fighting the kind of driver scrutiny</a> that
                                taxicab companies have been required to enforce for many decades. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Many reports suggest that beleaguered drivers don’t feel much better about
                                the company than victimized passengers do. They tell <a href="http://qz.com/299655/why-your-uber-driver-hates-uber/">horror stories</a> about
                                the company’s hiring and management practices. Uber <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/uber_unrest_drivers_in_los_angeles_protest_the_slashing_of_rates/">unilaterally slashes drivers’ rates</a>,
                                while claiming they don’t need to unionize. (The <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3037371/the-teamsters-of-the-21st-century-how-uber-lyft-and-facebook-drivers-are-organizing">Teamsters</a> disagree.) <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>The company also pushes<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/11/06/3589715/uber-lending-investigation/"> sketchy, substandard loans</a> onto
                                its drivers – but hey, what could go wrong?<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Uber has many libertarian defenders. And yet, it <a href="http://pando.com/2014/10/29/uber-prs-latest-trick-impersonating-its-drivers-and-trying-to-scam-journalists/">deceives the press</a> and
                                <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/17/uber_exec_suggests_using_personal_info_against_journalists.html">threatens to spy on journalists</a>, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/04/technology/uber-lyft/">lies to its own employees</a>,
                                    keeps its practices a secret and routinely invades the privacy of civilians
                                    – sometimes merely for entertainment. (It has a tool, with the Orwellian
                                    name the “<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/03/god-view-uber-allegedly-stalked-users-for-party-goers-viewing-pleasure/">God View</a>,”
                                    that it can use for monitoring customers’ personal movements.) <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Aren’t those the kinds of things libertarians say they hate about <em>government</em>?<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>This isn’t a “gotcha” exercise. It matters. Uber is the poster child for
                                the pro-privatization, anti-regulatory ideology that ascribes magical powers
                                to technology and the private sector. It is deeply a political entity,
                                from its Nietzschean name to its recent hiring of White House veteran David
                                Plouffe. Uber is built around a relatively simple app (which relies on
                                government-created technology), but it’s not really a tech company. Above
                                all else Uber is an ideological campaign, a neoliberal project whose real
                                products are deregulation and the dismantling of the social contract.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Or maybe, as that tweeter in Sydney suggested, they’re just assholes.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>Either way, it’s important that Uber’s worldview and business practices
                                not be allowed to “disrupt” our economy or our social fabric. People who
                                work hard deserve to make a decent living. Society at large deserves access
                                to safe and affordable transportation. And government, as the collective
                                expression of a democratic society, has a role to play in protecting its
                                citizens. <em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>And then there’s the matter of our collective psyche. In her book “A Paradise
                                Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster,” Rebecca
                                Solnit wrote of the purpose, meaning and deep satisfaction people find
                                when they pull together to help one another in the face of adversity. 
                                But in the world Uber seeks to create, those surges of the spirit would
                                be replaced by surge pricing.<em></em>
                            </p>
                            <p>You don’t need a “God view” to see what happens next. When heroism is
                                reduced to a transaction, the soul of a society is sold cheap. <em></em>
                            </p>
                        </div></div>